UNITED STATES v. PARCEL OF REAL PROP.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 28, 1989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3201 CAUGHEY ROAD, MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP, ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, and BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS ERECTED THEREON, CONSOLIDATED WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3236 WEST 26TH STREET, MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP, ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, and BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS ERECTED THEREON

In providing for this exemption, Congress clearly evidenced in its language its intent to place the burden of proof upon the claimant asserting it. The government need not prove that the claimant had actual knowledge. Rather, it is the claimant's responsibility to prove the absence of actual knowledge. United States v. Four Million Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand, 762 F.2d 895, 907 (11th Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, Claimant Jeannine Thomas argues that property held by tenants by the entireties can only be forfeited upon a greater showing of criminal culpability on behalf of both spouses. We cannot agree. Congress clearly and unequivocably indicated what the relevant inquiry should be. In doing so, it did not distinguish between a claim of innocent ownership by a spouse as opposed to such a claim by any other person. Similarly, we are not aware of any court, which in considering § 881(a)(7), has found that any different standard should apply to spouses holding property as tenants by the entireties. We conclude that the relevant inquiry herein, is that which was clearly provided for by Congress - whether Jeannine Thomas can establish by a preponderance of evidence that she did not have knowledge of or consent to Ronald's use of the properties to facilitate the distribution of cocaine. See, United States v. 30.80 Acres, Bruce Twp., Guilford City, N.C., 665 F. Supp. 422 (M.D. N.C. 1987) and United States v. 124 East North Ave., Lake Forest, IIl., 651 F. Supp. 1350 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

In addition to the previous findings of fact, we make several further findings relating to the question of Jeannine's knowledge of her husband's activities.

Findings of Fact

1. The Caughey Road property was purchased by the Thomases on November 16, 1971, and was used as the family residence.

2. For some period of time, Joe Long went to the Thomas residence weekly to get cocaine from Ron Thomas, and Jeannine was usually present at the residence.

3. Jeannine was present a "few times" when Long used cocaine at the Thomas house.

4. Jeff Connelly also picked up and used cocaine at the Thomas residence on numerous occasions, and Jeannine was frequently present in the house at these times.

5. Connelly testified that sometime in 1985 Jeannine used cocaine in his presence, but "she did not like it."

6. James Lockwood also purchased cocaine from Ron Thomas at the Thomas residence.

7. Joseph Luciano also often purchased cocaine from Ron Thomas at the Thomas residence.

8. Towards the end of his transactions, Luciano got cocaine from Thomas on an almost daily basis.

10. Sebastian Ambrogio delivered cocaine to Ron Thomas at the Thomas residence and delivered it to Jeannine when Ron was not there.

11. Ambrogio also used cocaine at the Thomas residence in Jeannine's presence.

12. When Joseph and Susan Luciano wished to purchase cocaine from Ron Thomas, Susan Luciano would call the Thomas home and leave a message with Jeannine.

13. When Susan Luciano talked with Jeannine to arrange a meeting with Ron, cocaine was not specifically mentioned.

14. The Lucianos and Jeff Connelly all testified as to a transaction occurring at the Thomas residence on or about September 6, 1986, in which Joseph Luciano made a payment of $ 9,000 to Ronald Thomas as partial payment of a cocaine debt.

15. The Lucianos testified that Ron Thomas gave the money to Jeannine to count.

16. Connelly could not remember for sure if Jeannine counted the money.

17. Ron Thomas testified that he counted the money and merely called his wife in from the next room to bring him some "wrappers."

18. Joseph and Susan Luciano also testified to a transaction at their house in which Ron and Jeannine Thomas were present, when a diamond ring was given to Jeannine in exchange for a reduction in the Lucianos' cocaine debt.

19. Ron Thomas testified that he did not tell his wife that the ring was in partial payment of a cocaine debt.

20. Ron Thomas did testify that Jeannine heard the details of the exchange but immediately corrected himself saying that he did not think she heard.

21. Joe Long testified that in July of 1986, while he was helping Jeannine Thomas clean out the Thomas garage, Jeannine found a stash of Ron's cocaine under some steps leading from the garage into the house.

22. Long further testified that when Jeannine found the cocaine, she thought it was "funny."

23. Joe Long also testified that sometime around the Spring of 1986, after the Thomases' son Chris overdosed on cocaine, Jeannine told Long that, "if it wasn't for Ronnie getting involved in cocaine, all this never would have happened."

24. Special Agent Kim Kelly of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that he had a conversation with Jeannine when a warrant was being served and she asked several questions including:

"was everyone being arrested?"

"what about DiLoreto?" (Thomas' main source of cocaine, who was convicted with him)

"what about the big man in Florida? "

25. Jeannine also related to Kelly how concerned and upset she was after her son Chris overdosed.

26. Ron Thomas agreed on cross examination herein, that cocaine had become a pervasive part of his life and that Jeannine was aware of that.

27. The abundance of evidence, herein, points to one single inescapable factual conclusion: Jeannine Thomas was well aware of her husband's involvement in the use and distribution of cocaine, and the level to which it had permeated every facet of his life.

28. Clearly, therefore, from the evidence herein, there remains no factual dispute, but that Jeannine Thomas was well aware that her husband was using the Caughey Road residence to store, distribute, and otherwise facilitate the distribution of cocaine.

30. With respect to the West 26th Street car lot; while Jeannine may not have been aware of the specifics of any individual cocaine related transactions, it is grossly disingenuous for her to argue that she therefore did not know that the property was used by her husband in his cocaine dealings, in light of the manner in which she knew it had taken over his entire life.

31. We therefore conclude that Jeannine must have known that her husband was also using the West 26th Street car lot to facilitate his distribution of cocaine.

Conclusion of Law

In accordance with our findings of fact herein, we conclude that Jeannine has failed to meet her burden of showing that the use of the properties to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was without her knowledge or consent. Therefore, as a matter of law, Jeannine does not qualify as an innocent owner as contemplated in § 881(a)(7), and her interest in both properties is forfeitable.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28 day of June, 1989, it is ORDERED that the interests of claimants Ronald and Jeannine Thomas, in both parcels of real property along with buildings and improvements erected thereon, are hereby forfeited to the United States. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mark both cases CLOSED.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.